Rasaq Dipo Salaam petitions for review of the decision of a
divided Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for asylum
and withholding of removal. We grant petition for review.

13208

I. Background

The following information is drawn from Petitioner's
application for asylum and testimony before the Immigration Judge (IJ). Rasaq
Dipo Salaam, a 23-year-old Nigerian citizen, had been politically active in his
home country since high school. In 1994, Salaam joined the Free Nigeria
Movement (FNM), an organization whose mission is to fight government abuses.
Less than one year after joining the organization, at age eighteen, Salaam became
vice-president of the FNM chapter for his district of approximately 65 members.
Salaam hand wrote "articles" or fliers criticizing the government and
posted them around Lagos, Nigeria's capital. Each flier listed Salaam's name
and address because he wanted people to send him information about further
government abuses for inclusion in subsequent fliers. Salaam also organized
demonstrations protesting government oppression. Salaam was the sole speaker at
these meetings, which were intended to further disseminate the information
contained in his fliers. Approximately 200-300 people attended the
demonstrations, a count based on the number of fliers distributed.

The Nigerian police arrested Salaam four times. Each arrest
followed circulation of one of Salaam's fliers attacking the government. The
fliers criticized the government for such abuses as the execution of Ken
Sara-Wiwa, a prominent opposition figure, the annulment of elections, the
perpetration of random acts of violence against the population, and police
corruption. After each arrest, Salaam was held incommunicado for several days
and tortured by flogging. Salaam bears scars from these beatings near his right
eye, on his right elbow, and on both knees. Despite these arrests, Salaam
continued to circulate fliers critical of the government and to include his
name and address.

The Nigerian police attempted to arrest Salaam a fifth time
on March 7, 1997. When the armed officers arrived at his home, however, Salaam
was out visiting a friend. Hearing a

13209

radio inside, the officers broke down Salaam's door and
ransacked his belongings. Salaam believes the police intended to arrest him as
part of an effort to keep opposition leaders from disrupting up-coming
elections. Fearing the police would again torture and perhaps kill him, Salaam
slept in the streets for two weeks. He then fled to Ghana and eventually to the
United States. He was able to gather only a few items of clothing and one
textbook from among his scattered belongings before he fled.

After testifying to these events before the IJ, Salaam
called two witnesses in support of his application for asylum. Olufemi Samuel,
another young Nigerian political activist who was granted political asylum in
the United States, met Salaam at a political meeting in 1988. Samuel was
impressed by Salaam, a particularly vocal young activist, and predicted Salaam
would someday "be something," perhaps Nigeria's president. After
Samuel fled to the United States, he spoke to Salaam on the phone and encouraged
Salaam to flee Nigeria as well. Salaam responded: "you guys are like
people that ran away from the country when you should have been there, you
know, a warrior and fight . . . ." Salaam declared that he would die for
his country.

Salaam's second witness was his older brother, Lekam Salaam,
who testified that Petitioner has always been an aggressive and vocal person
and that their mother worried about the danger to him because of his political
activities. In addition to these witnesses, Salaam submitted a State Department
Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions stating that the human rights
situation in Nigeria "remains dismal" and opposition leaders are
"at real risk," andanother
report confirming that "police and security services commonly committed
extra-judicial killings and used excessive force to quell anti-government and
pro-democracy protests." Finally, Salaam submitted documentary evidence
that the FNM is "a grassroots based global mass movement work-13210 ing for the full and total restoration of freedom to Nigeria
and its people."

The BIA conducted an independent review of Salaam's
application. The BIA "disagree[d] with the Immigration Judge's finding of
adverse credibility" but nonetheless concluded Salaam had not met his
burden of proving eligibility for asylum because (1) aspects of his claim
were"implausible" and (2) he failed to provide corroborating
evidence. The Board found it "implausible" that Salaam was elected
vice president of the FNM when he was eighteen years old, and had been a member
for less than a year. The Board found this aspect of Salaam's claim in conflict
with information Salaam provided regarding the importance of the FNM. The Board
also found it "unlikely" that Salaam was the sole spokesperson for
the organization, and "implausible" that Salaam continued to put his
name on his political writings after being arrested and beaten because of them.
For these reasons, the BIA concluded Salaam "did not provide through his
testimony a sufficiently detailed and believable account of the basis of his
fear to meet his burden of proof solely on his testimony."

The BIA's second ground for denying Salaam asylum was that
he failed to produce evidence to corroborate his claim or a reasonable
explanation for his failure to do so. The BIA said various documents
"should have been available " including evidence of Salaam's
affiliation with the FNM, his medical records, and the fliers themselves.
Salaam petitions for review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ' 1252.

II. Standard of Review

Because the BIA conducted a de novo review of Salaam's
eligibility for asylum, we review the Board's decision. See Ghaly v. INS , 58
F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995). We review the factual findings underlying the
BIA's decision, including its adverse credibility finding, under the
substantial evidence

[1] Although the BIA rejected the IJ's adverse credibility
determination, the BIA failed to make an explicit credibility finding of its
own. The BIA simply commented on the "implausibility" of aspects of
Salaam's testimony and concluded that Salaam had not met his burden of proving
eligibility for asylum. Because a finding that testimony is
"implausible" indicates disbelief, for the purposes of this appeal,
we treat the BIA's comments regarding "implausibility" as an adverse
credibility finding. C.f. Abovian v. INS, 219 F.3d 972, 978 (9th Cir. 2000)
(reviewing an adverse credibility finding that was based on the BIA's
determination that the petitioner's testimony was "distracted, incoherent,
and implausible"). Asthis Court
has cautioned, however, the BIA should clearly address the issue of credibility
whenever the IJ makes a finding that an applicant is not credible. Cf.
Cordon-Garcia v. INS , 204 F.3d 985, 993 (9th Cir. 2000) ("[W]e strongly
encourage the BIA to discuss or expressly adopt, rather than ignore, the IJ's credibility
findings in an asylum case."). The BIA " `must have a legitimate
articulable basis to question the petitioner's credibility, and must offer a
specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief.' " Osorio v. INS, 99F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting
Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 342 (9th Cir. 1994)). Any such reason" `must
be substantial and bear a legitimate nexus to the finding.' " Id.(quoting Mosa v. Rogers, 89 F.3d 601, 604
(9th Cir. 1996)). This Court reverses an adverse credibility determination that
is based on "speculation and conjecture" and is not supportedby evidence in the record. See Akinmade v.
INS , 196 F.3d 951,957 (9th Cir.
1999); Lopez-Reyes, 79 F.3d at 912 (holding that IJ's "astonishment"
regarding aspects of petitioner's testi-

13212

mony was "conjecture" that could not
"substitute for substantial evidence"); Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062,
1071 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding that the BIA's conclusion that it was
"unbelievable" that the petitioner had so few pieces of
correspondence after ten years of work for the opposition party rested on
speculation and conjecture, and could not support an adverse credibility
finding).

[2] The BIA's adverse credibility finding is not supported
by substantial evidence. The BIA's statement that it is "not
plausible" that Salaam was a leading member of the FNM at age eighteen is
based entirely on an unsupported assumption. The BIA seems to believe that
"important" organizations do not have young leaders. Salaam was very
clear in both his application and testimony that he was vice-president only of
his district group consisting of 65 members. He was the sole spokesperson at
the meetings because the purpose of the meetings was to disseminate information
contained in the fliers he wrote . In addition to Salaam's testimony, two
witnesses corroborated Salaam's explanation of his role in the FNM. Olufemi
Samuel, a fellow political activist, stated that the average age of
participants at some political meetings was between sixteen and eighteen.
Samuel stated that Salaam was particularly vocal for such a young man. Salaam's
older brother also confirmed that Salaam has been vocal and aggressive since he
was a young child. Given the uncontradicted evidence in the record, the BIA's
conclusion that Salaam's testimony was implausible cannot be sustained.

[3] The BIA's only other reason for questioning the
truthfulness of Salaam's claim was the "implausibility " of Salaam's
testimony that he continued to include his name on fliers critical of the
government after being arrested and beaten for writing the fliers. Again, the
BIA's finding is an unsupported assumption in the face of significant evidence.
Salaam explained that he continued to include his name on the fliers because he
wanted people to know where to send evidence of further government abuses.
Salaam and his two wit-

13213

nesses testified to the young man's intense commitment to
fighting government oppression in Nigeria. Salaam chastised his friend Samuel
for abandoning the cause and stated that he would die for his country. The BIA
offers no support for its conclusion that a "vocal" and
"aggressive " young man suchas Salaam would abandon his efforts to combat what he regarded as
injustice after being arrested and tortured. It is not implausible that a motivated
activist would continue to support his political ideals even in the face of
repeated oppression.

The BIA also denied Salaam's asylum application because he
failed to produce evidence of his membership in the FNM, his fliers, or medical
records. The BIA found that these documents "should have been
available" and that Salaam failed toprovide a reasonable explanation for their absence.

[4] This circuit's rule regarding corroboration is that:

"[W]hen an alien credibly testifies to certain facts, those
factsare deemed true, and the question
remaining to be answered becomes whether these facts, and their reasonable
inferences, satisfy the elements of the claim for relief. No further
corroboration is required." Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir.2000). We recently held that "where the
IJ has reason to question the applicant's credibility, and the applicant fails
to produce non-duplicative, material, easily available corroborating evidence
and provides no credible explanation for such failure, an adverse credibility
finding will withstand appellate review." Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085,
1092 (9th Cir. 2000). However, where, as here, the BIA offers no legitimate
reason

13214

to question the applicant's credibility, we must reverse a
finding that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof because he did
not provide corroborating evidence. We therefore deem Salaam credible and
consider whether his experiences satisfy the elements of a claim for asylum and
withholding of removal.

[5] It is worth noting, however, that the BIA's finding that
Salaam failed to produce available corroborating evidence is erroneous. The
record does not contain substantial evidence that the specific corroborating
documents mentioned in the BIA opinion were "easily available" to
Salaam. Shah, 220F.3d at 1070 (quoting
Sidhu, 220 F.3d at 1091). Salaam provided a reasonable explanation for the
absence of the documents: in his haste to flee the country, Salaam was able to
gather only a few items from among his scattered belongings. Salaam also
explained that it would have been dangerous for him to carry fliers critical of
the government during his escape. Finally, Salaam did produce substantial
evidence corroborating his claim. The record contains two reports describing
conditions in Nigeria and a document explaining the mission of the FNM. Cf.
Akinmade, 196 F.3d at 957 ("[P]etitioner's account was more than
adequately corroborated by the general descriptions of the political situation
in Nigeria contained in the U.S. Department of State Report and Amnesty
International publications."). Two witnesses (neither of whom was found
incredible) testified that Salaam was a member of the FNM, a precocious leader,
an aggressive speaker, and a dedicated member of the Nigerian opposition.
Salaam showed the IJ scars received from beatings at the hands of the Nigerian
police.

We reverse the BIA's finding that Salaam did not adequately
corroborate his testimony and hold that in any event corroboration was not
required because the reasons given for questioning Salaam's credibility were
without merit.

13215

C. Eligibility for Asylum

Salaam has proven by compelling evidence that he suffered
past persecution on account of his political opinion. See Navas v. INS , 217
F.3d 646, 655-56 (9th Cir. 2000) ("In order to establish eligibility for
asylum on the basis of past persecution, an applicant must show: (1) an
incident, or incidents, that rise to the level of persecution; (2) that is`on
account of' [political opinion]; and (3) is committed by the government. .
."). The BIA gave no reasons, other than the implausibility of Salaam's
story and his failure to provide corroborating evidence, for denying Salaam's
request for asylum and withholding of deportation. Found credible, Salaam's evidence
of past persecution on the basis of political opinion is "so compelling
that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution." INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478,483-84 (1992); see also Akinmade, 196 F.3d
at 958. On four occasions the Nigerian police arrested Salaam, held him
incommunicado for several days, and tortured him because he wrote and
distributed fliers critical of the government. Salaam's account of these events
in his very detailed testimony and application for asylum is uncontroverted.

Because Salaam has established past persecution on account
of political opinion, he is entitled to a presumption that he has a
well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 CFR ' 208.13(b)(1)(i). The INS
bears the burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that country
conditions have changed sufficiently to rebut that presumption. Seeid.

The record before us contains no evidence that country
conditions in Nigeria have changed at all, let alone changed sufficiently to
rebut the perception that Salaam has a well-founded fear of future persecution.
"Where, as here, we conclude that past persecution has been established,
but the INS has failed to introduce the requisite country conditions
information and thus has failed to meet its evidentiary burden on

13216

that issue, we do not remand, because the ultimate outcome
is clear." Navas , 217 F.2d at 662.

On the record before the BIA, Salaam was statutorily
eligible for asylum.

D. Withholding of Removal

The finding of past persecution also triggers a presumption
that Salaam has shown a clear probability of future persecution and is
therefore entitled to withholding of removal. See

id. Again, there is nothing in the record to rebut that
presumption.

Petition for review GRANTED; REMANDED for the exercise of
the Attorney General's discretion with respect to the asylum claim and for
entry of an order withholding removal.